MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096429092 · doi:10.1002/per.635

Taxonomy and structure of the Polish personality lexicon

2007· article· en· W2096429092 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyAgreeablenessConscientiousnessIntellectLexiconBig Five personality traitsOpenness to experienceExtraversion and introversionPersonalityHierarchical structure of the Big FiveSocial psychologyBig Five personality traits and cultureDevelopmental psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We identified 1839 person‐descriptive adjectives from a Polish dictionary, and 10 judges classified those adjectives into five descriptive categories. Two hundred ninety adjectives (16 per cent) were classified by most judges as ‘Dispositions’ (i.e. relatively stable personality traits and abilities). We examined the structure of those 290 adjectives in self‐ratings from 350 respondents. In the five‐factor solution, two dimensions closely resembled Big Five Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and two others represented rotated variants of Extraversion and Emotional Stability. The fifth factor was dominated by Intellect, containing little Imagination and no Unconventionality content. A six‐factor solution closely resembled the cross‐language HEXACO structure (but with ‘Intellect’ rather than ‘Openness to Experience’). Analyses of 369 peer ratings revealed five‐ and six‐factor solutions nearly identical to those of self‐ratings. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it